(This is an abridged extract from Derren Brown’s entry in The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas as it appeared on the Guardian website in December 2009)

Kindness at Christmas is as transparent as a dodgy magician. We should aim for generosity without religions or calendars.

I have at home a box of old teeth. These are arranged by colour upon a wheel: unnaturally white through familiar cream, through the tobacco stains of yellow and brown to the foulest greens and grey that are hard to imagine in the mouth of any living creature. They constitute a dentist’s guide to colour-matching, and accompanying the grisly colour-wheel are some small medical bottles, hoses and other whatnots.

Read More

You might remember we posted an article about this debate, hosted by Intelligence Squared, a little while back. Now here’s the debate in full, for your audiovisual edification:

(with our own Derren Brown sat in the audience too)

Via Intelligence Squared

(This article originally appeared on Pink News)

The Catholic Church is not a force for good in the world: that was the overwhelming verdict after a heated debate this week. Stephen Fry and author/journalist Christopher Hitchens opposed the motion, while Ann Widdecombe and Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria, supported it.

During the two-hour showdown, organised by Intelligence Squared at the Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, Hitchens and Fry mercilessly and articulately lambasted the church for its record of homophobia, child abuse and anti-semitism, as well as its stance on contraception.

Christopher Hitchens wasted no time in living up to his reputation as a bulldog debater: “On the institutionalisation of rape and torture, the maltreatment of children in their care, [the current pope] Joseph Ratzinger said: ‘It is a very serious crisis which demands us in the need for applying to the victims, the most loving pastoral care.’ Well, I’m sorry, they have already had that.”

Hitchens tore into the Vatican for its refusal to hand over Cardinal Bernard Law, the former Archbishop of Boston, to Massachusetts police for questioning about his role in the child abuse scandals. “Here is a man wanted for the promotion, protection, covering up and defence of people whose crimes against children are too revolting to specify,” he fumed. “Yet he is acting as vicar of the American Catholic Church in Rome, personally appointed by the Pope and in 2005, even joining the Conclave, to decide who the next pope should be.”

This brought him to the topic of homophobia: “The rape is not to be relativised, and certainly not to be excused by the hideously false claims made by some conservatives, that this wouldn’t happen if queers hadn’t been allowed into the church.”

“The church can apologise, too, for condemning my friend Stephen Fry, for his nature. For saying he couldn’t be a member of your church even if he wanted to. Don’t condemn him for what he does, condemn him for what he is! This is obscene, disgraceful and inhumane, and it comes from hysterical, sinister virgins who have already betrayed their charge of children.”

He showed the hypocrisy of this exclusion, by comparing it the to the willingness of the pope to accept back into the church Richard Williamson, a bishop from an extreme right-wing sect, which denies the Holocaust happened.

Hitchens also gave a list of evils committed by the church over the centuries, including the Crusades, the sacking of Constantinople, the Inquisition, and the torture and murder of scientists and protestants. He laid the responsibility for the Holocaust at the Church’s door, which he claims was made possible by role in inciting hatred of Jews over the centuries: “That the church taught that the Jewish people were collectively responsible for the death of Christ until 1964, twenty years after the Nuremberg trials, may or may not have had something to do with the availability of a reservoir of hate to tap into in Germany, Poland, Austria, Spain, Italy and elsewhere.”

Widdecombe gave a spirited defence, protesting at Hitchens’s exaggerations about the Church’s responsibility for inciting genocide in Rwanda, and highlighting the great risks taken by Catholic priests and nuns across Europe in protecting the Jews during the war.

She stated that, because so little was known about paedophilia even until a few decades ago, when magistrates awarded sentences of a few months in prison until as late as the 1990s. It was thought people who abused would simply stop, she claimed. On charity, she added: “Billions of pounds each year are poured into overseas aid by Catholics, more than any other single nation for medicine and education. Imagine the absence of those collections.”

Irritated by the focus of the debate on sex and condoms, she claimed: “The church is about hope and salvation. And it is intellectual arrogance to say people around the world can simply live without that. People are trying their hardest to live by Christ’s message; by the commandments, by the interpretation of those commandments. Sometimes they don’t quite manage. It would be a poorer, more hopeless place without it for many.”

She maintained that it was the church’s critics who were obsessed with sex, and that condoms have been ineffective in tackling AIDS in Africa.

While forthright in his condemnation for the church, Stephen Fry first emphasised the importance of showing solidarity with the religious believer: “I do not want to express any contempt towards any individuals of that church. They are welcome to their sacraments to their faith and the importance and the joy they receive from it. This joy is sacrosanct to anyone, of any church in the world. It is important as I also happen to have my own beliefs, in the eternal nature of trying to discover more truth in the world. It is an empirical fight that began with the Enlightenment, and there is nothing the Catholic Church likes to do more, than attack it.”

The latter was a reference to the torture of Galileo, who was famously forced to recant his beliefs about the Earth revolving around the sun, to avoid being burned at the stake. The Vatican finally decided he was right after all, in 1992.

On homosexuality, Fry said: “It’s a little hard to believe I am disordered or guilty of a moral evil simply for fulfilling my sexual destiny. It’s hard to be told I am full of evil. I think of myself full of love, whose only purpose in life was to achieve love, and who feels love so much from nature and everywhere else. In order to achieve and receive love, you don’t need a priest to tell you how you do it. You certainly don’t need a pope to tell you, you are evil. And the many LGBT teenagers who attempt suicide certainly don’t need the stigmatisation and victimisation that leads to playground bullying, that comes from saying you are a disordered morally evil individual.”

In contrast, Fry went on to describe the priesthood as being full of ‘extraordinarily sexually dysfunctional people’, since celibacy was neither natural nor normal.

He attacked the church for using its power as a nation, siding with extremist Islamic states in the UN to veto any resolution on women’s sexual freedoms as well as LGBT rights.

But most of his venom was reserved for the consequences of the Church’s position on contraception. He highlighted his experience of Uganda, where AIDS was once successfully tackled by the ‘ABC’ policy of Abstinence – Be Faithful – Correct use of Condoms. Now, this is jeopardised by reverting to abstinence only approaches. “I don’t deny abstinence is a good way of not getting AIDS. It really works. But so do condoms!” he thundered. “[The Pope] spreads the lie that condoms increase the incidence of aids. He actually makes sure that aid is conditional on saying no to condoms. The pain and suffering you see as a result is appalling.”

Fry asked the audience to consider if the Catholic Church reflected Jesus’s message of love: “One person who would be the least to be accepted, would be the Galilean carpenter. That simple and remarkable man, would be so ill at ease in the church. You do not need this palace of marble and gold. What would he think of any of that, and someone who dared to lecture others on family values? He would be horrified! There is redemption for all of us, including the church. It has to get rid of this power, the wealth, the hierarchy, sell all the loot off, and concentrate on the essence of its beliefs. Then I would stand and say it is a force for good. But until they do, it is not.”

One would feel sorry for the unfortunate Archbishop Onaiyekan, who lacked the fiery oratory skills of his opponents. Repeatedly referring to his co-defendant as ‘Miss Weatherman’ did nothing for his cause, either. But he lost his argument due to his evasiveness in the face of such severe accusations and, in particular, by his refusal to apologise for the church’s handling of child abuse.

During the Q&A session, many in the audience vented their anger at the church’s homophobia. It was a reminder that this was not just any old intellectual debate. For some, it was as if their personal integrity were on trial. The chairwoman, BBC World broadcaster Zeinab Badawi, turned to the Archbishop to ask what Jesus said about homosexuality.

“That’s not the right question,” his Grace retorted, to hoots of derision from the audience. He then went on to claim that said that those engaging in sexual acts aren’t automatically condemned for it afterwards, as “each has his own story to tell”.

This seemed a bizarre assertion, given the funding provided by the Catholic Church for campaigns aimed at banning gay marriage in California and Maine. Hitchens mocked this: “The Archbishop is completely wrong. It doesn’t just say homosexuality is wrong, in the same sense as divorce and contraception. Wherever it can, [the church] bans these things and punishes them. Homosexuality is not sex, it is a form of love and I am proud to have Stephen as my friend, and when my children were young, as babysitter also. If anyone had turned up to babysit in holy orders, I’d first call a cab and then call the police.”

He had no patience either for Widdecombe’s plea not to judge the church by today’s standards, wondering why God decided not to reveal slavery was wrong until the 19th century, decades after humanists such as Thomas Paine came to that conclusion. For the defenders of the faith, this was a rout. The audience overwhelmingly opposed the motion, 1862 against, to 268 votes for.

Author: Adrian Tippetts 

A storm of complaints has brewed online thanks to Charlie Brooker, Stephen Fry and our own Mr Brown. Over 800 people contacted the Press Complaints Commission about a rather foot-in-mouth article published by Jan Moir of the Daily Mail.

The article comparing Stephen Gately’s death to “nothing more than an unfortunate mishap on a holiday weekend, like a broken teacup in the rented cottage” alarmed more than a few people. Continuing, it seemed to express that the death was likely to be suspicious, despite the coroner’s report stating otherwise, because of Gateley’s sexuality.

In a later rebuke Moir said “Some people, particularly in the gay community, have been upset by my article about the sad death of Boyzone member Stephen Gately. This was never my intention,”

“In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones,” Moir added.

The PCC have said it will only launch an investigation if it receives a complaint from Gately’s family. The Mail have changed the article’s headline from ‘Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death’ to ‘A strange, lonely and troubling death…’.

Charlie Brooker has called for people to be sensible on the matter; “Unchecked hysteria helps nobody. Let’s all have a lovely peaceful evening, no matter how annoyed” after Moir’s home address began appearing online.

You can read Brooker’s article here and read Moir’s apology here

Phillis has just received news from a previous acquaintance of Derren’s about the bearded trickster’s crafty exploits and how they lead to him being banned in casinos across the country.

In 2000, a young lady was working as a valet girl in a prominent London casino. Having worked in other venues, she was always happy to see a devilishly handsome young man with a rather familiar face. Nikki was unaware of the individual’s true identity – he was known to her only as someone frequenting her other places of work, both in and outside London. This young man was our very own Derren Brown, still early on in his career and not the international super-celebrity we all know him as today.

Nikki described him as “very personable. Always polite and well dressed and he took time out to talk to me and ask me questions about how the casino operated.”

Derren slowly became a regular. His demeanor was described by many as “quiet but very confident. Your average casino card player has at most a good grasp of the game. Derren knew exactly what was going on, he was extremely focused and calculated.”

This was not an unusual situation until Nikki began to realize that “Derren rarely ever placed a bet. At most he would play the fruit machines and seemed to have worked out how to crack them, but he would sit for ages at the card tables and just watch. Eventually he would opt in and place a small bet, he won every time without fail.”

It seemed to impress the other players at the tables and slowly became a novelty. Some thought Derren was there as entertainment, others were more intrigued: “he was very popular, everyone wanted to talk to him and find out who he was, what he did or how he managed to pull off a 100% result.”

Derren slowly increased the frequency and amounts he would bet. “It was never a large amount, but as it became more apparent he would never fail there was a point at which the pit bosses would become agitated”.

Soon he was beginning to be recognised. “The second he walked in there would be a fluster. The pit bosses would call to alert each other that he was in the building. I was instructed to stay close to him and get him whatever he asked for – to be extra nice to him”.

Meetings were held about what to do and soon it was decided that they didn’t want to risk making a scene. Very cleverly, Derren had managed to make quite an impression on people – if he began betting large amounts it could reflect badly on the casino if they decided to eject him in front of a cheering crowd.

So, quietly but surely, Derren began having trouble getting into certain venues – even with a subtle disguise he would be discovered and frogmarched out of the door. He would travel further afield but the network closed up and soon Derren realised fewer and fewer places were open to him. Eventually he scored a show with a popular TV network in the UK and put his casino days behind him for good.